Prosecuted for riding bikes on National Trust land?

That’s Malvern Hill Conservators land. Whole different approach to NT.[/quote]

In what way? Better or worse? I’ve never had a problem when <ahem> riding where I may not have a strict right to be, but curious about anybody who has. Though most of the places I ride I’d take the approach that if it’s not a BW it should be, and I’d happily discuss that with anybody official 😉

Just as an aside, ninfan should add the Malvern Hills (as in land owned/managed by the Conservators) to his list.

Access in Scotland seems to work completely via self-regulation. User conflict and/or unsuitability means that mountain bikers don’t ride everywhere in practice, even if they have a right to do so in principle. Am I missing something here?

Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start.

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes

Arguably Nan Bield Pass is unsuitable for cycling, yet it remains a “must ride” classic for countless mountain bikers. It’s a current right of way for cyclists and is far from being on its own when it comes to being a hike-a-bike. My wife is perfectly capable of riding a bike yet Jacob’s Ladder – another classic – is wholly unsuitable for her skills. The suitability argument is extremely subjective.

Talk to your local horse riders and they will argue that many of their local bridleways are not suitable for horse riding.

That said, when it comes to suitability with regard to sharing the trail with other users, I have more empathy. Is that the kind of suitability you’re referring to @ninfan?

Aracer, oh, where to start… of course Malvern Hills is Section 15 land, excluded from CROW access rights due to preexisting access rights

The actual north/south belt of hills themselves are mainly legally held as unenclosed common land – confirmed under the malvern hills act 1884. They have rights of access that predate modern access legislation, essentially the longstanding thread is that the hills were held by the Malvern Hills conservators with a duty to keep them as:

“unenclosed and unbuilt on as open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public”

I think thats an important phrase to keep in our heads – to prevent nuisances or encroachments the conservators were also given powers to create byelaws, By the time of the 1930 act one of the aims of which was that of:
“regulating games to be played and other means of recreation to be exercised on the Malvern Hills”

At this point I am unclear as to what level of problems cycle access was causing, or whether any of the byelaws inform specifically prohibited cycling, because by the time of the 1995 act, they created an amendment to the 1930 act which added the right to create a bylaw to:

“(k) For preventing or regulating vehicles, including cycles, being parked, driven or ridden on any part of the Malvern Hills not set apart for that purpose; and for regulating the use of parking places on any part of the Malvern Hills.”

This was then conferred into the 1999 byelaws as:
“No unauthorised person shall ride any cycle on the Hills except on a public bridleway or upon a path or part of the Hills where such cycling is permitted by the Conservators.”

Now, its not particularly clear to me as to how tolerated mountain biking was on the hills before 1999, but I suspect that had it been unregulated before 1999, then suddenly banned by the creation of this bylaw, then I would have heard something about it at the time – I suspect they did this to clarify the 1930 provision as a belt and braces, because I suspect that an older bylaw would have prohibited “carts carriages or other vehicles” and precedent has shown us that this would clearly have covered cycles.
what it is of significant note that many other activities are also, or can be, regulated or controlled in the byelaws, most of which are tolerated to some degree.

So, thats our current position today – to me its pretty clear that two vitally important factors can be identified

i) One of the duties of the conservators is to provide open spaces for the recreation and enjoyment of the public, it doesn’t offer a value judgement against any particular form of recreation and enjoyment, its is designed to be a reflection of society – cycling, mountain biking, is a valid and widely accepted form of taking ‘air and exercise’, it is right that as mountain biking ha grown, this is reflected in the tolerance and provision offered.
ii) The current byelaws regulate cycling anywhere outside the existing bridleways, but they also allow the Conservators to identify additional areas and paths where it is permitted.. Something that I know James and others locally have been working on.

ninfan – No, you are seeking to ‘educate’ people by banging on about ‘it’s not illegal, it’s just trespass’ even when you don’t know the difference yourself, that’s just pointless, because the day that you run up against someone like me on the other side who actually knows what the law is on that big of land, every cyclist who repeats your mantra looks like a knob.

The only misinformation is from you, because no rider can ever know the legal status of the land they are riding on, so you are creating a false sense of security and righteousness, in thinking they are not breaking the law, when in many cases they in fact will be.

I’ve not mentioned trespass, we already look like nobs because we’re happily admitting we’re breaking the law.

If no rider can ever know the legal status of the land then no walker and highly likely most workers can never know either but we still agree with them. And if “in many cases” cyclist are breaking the law then equally there are cases where they are not.

Anyway this is futile, we clearly disagree.

Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start. Certainly in southern England it wouldn’t be a realistic approach to the issue.

I doubt there’s any hill in southern England that gets as many annual visitors as Ben Nevis, but hey. Population density, amirite?

Price of fish?

That said, when it comes to suitability with regard to sharing the trail with other users, I have more empathy. Is that the kind of suitability you’re referring to @ninfan?

Yes, unfortunately public footpaths are a broad church, based on patchy and inadequately recorded historic use and partial, often arbitrary, assessment by local andparish councils. So we end up with this:

And this:

Both carrying the same legal status – in arguing/promoting the simplistic message of access to all footpaths for bikes, we are asking for access to both, and like it or not, nobody could reasonably argue that the second of those images was suitable for bikes, so we sound ridiculous in arguing for it,and continuing to do so throws petrol on the people who would most oppose it

I doubt there’s any hill in southern England that gets as many annual visitors as Ben Nevis, but hey. Population density, amirite?

ahem…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_Hill,_Surrey

An estimated 850,000 people visit Box Hill each year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nevis

The mountain is a popular destination, attracting an estimated 100,000 ascents a year

Price of fish?

Depends where you shop…

Not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, therefore arguing for it makes us utterley unreasonable, we have been repeating the same mantra for thirty years, and achieved nothing more than banging our head against a brick walll, because every time we discuss it we fail to recognise and admit that not all footpaths are suitable for bikes, so it just pours petrol on the fire and stokes up opposition

That’s our absurd rights of way system for you. Plenty of bridleways aren’t ‘suitable for bikes’ either, but people get hung up on the misconception that somehow designation of a track as a footpath or bridleway is related to its suitability for use rather than being a historical accident.

Anyway, my experience is that whatever the legalities, if you actually engage with other trail users so you’re a a fellow human being rather than a faceless ‘mountain biker’, no-oine gives a stuff where you ride within reason.

I’m also quite happy with things as they are. The last thing I want is all my best local trails appearing in the latest V-Publishing guide – Dark Peak – The Unridden Trails – and being transformed into erosion scars by weekend warriors from Wolverhampton (no offence to anyone from Wolverhampton, I just wanted something beginning with ‘W’, Walsall would do just as well. Or Wrexham.

Anyway, do carry on… 😉

BWD, One of the challenges IMO is that while many/most of us grizzened outdoor users are perfectly happy, the real problems that it creates are for promoting and increasing participation at the grass roots level.

There are loads, and loads, and loads of routes out there being ridden by us lot, without any issues, that would be really popular to bring new people to the sport (increasing physical activity, health and wellbeing etc. – but more importantly creating a critical mass of more pople riding bikes off-road that would increase our lobbying powers for better access provision) but at the moment we cannot actively promote or sell o the wider community because they use a bit of footpath or undesignated trail,

about to ride off when he bloked my way.

Ouch.

We need to start being pragmatic and arguing for more access to the places that are suitable, e.g. Existing tracks ad paths on CROW land & upgrading shed loads of footpaths that are perfectly usable by bike, without distancing and excommunicating ourself with unreasonable requests, like demanding access to all footpaths.

I would argue that opening up all and closing by exception is better than piecemeal opening. There will be less to “close” than there will to “open” and therefore the burden is distributed properly and in keeping with deregulation policy.

In the case of your pictures a dog walker would stop my youngest using the path because passing is so tight and she won’t tolerate that proximity to unknown dogs. Her rights are diminished by a “reasonable accompaniment” of another user. Why is the bicycle as a “reasonable accompaniment” any different

Damn, someone came up with my Kinder Mass Trespass argument – I had a very nice chat to a couple in the Peaks a while back whilst I was “confused” as to the exact status of the trail I was on.
It was all very friendly as I believe in the obnoxiously cheerful and friendly approach and we ended up parting on very good term after a very amicable chat and a “good luck with your protest” as I left

Plus England / Wales is very different to Scotland.

They’re full of bellends who won’t share strips of dirt in the countryside with other?

My ploy for if I’m ever caught on NT land by someone of consequence like a ranger is to point out that I’m a member and so I guess I sort of own the land.

Jambo that’s 100,000 *ascents* – the Glen gets about 400,000 visitors each year.

http://www.outdoorcapital.co.uk/explore/ben-nevis

Anyway, aren’t most of the visitors to Box Hill wearing Rapha?

Anyway, aren’t most of the visitors to Box Hill wearing Rapha?

It’s the law.

At the bottom there’s the swinging body of someone caught ascending wearing DHB. It serves as a warning to the rest of the great unwashed.

I would argue that opening up all and closing by exception is better than piecemeal opening. There will be less to “close” than there will to “open” and therefore the burden is distributed properly and in keeping with deregulation policy.

It’s like saying “ooh, I wouldn’t start from here though” when someone asks for directions. We are where we are, and the issues and powers stacked against it mean that, much as it would be nice, it isn’t going to happen that way.

In the case of your pictures a dog walker would stop my youngest using the path because passing is so tight and she won’t tolerate that proximity to unknown dogs. Her rights are diminished by a “reasonable accompaniment” of another user. Why is the bicycle as a “reasonable accompaniment” any different

‘Reasonable accompaniment’ is probably one of the most misunderstood bits of rights of way law, repeatedly misinterpreted thanks to R v Mathias (1861) and pretty much irrelevant as it has long been surpassed by a wider ‘reasonable use’ test from DPP vs Jones

It’s like saying “ooh, I wouldn’t start from here though” when someone asks for directions. We are where we are, and the issues and powers stacked against it mean that, much as it would be nice, it isn’t going to happen that way.

I can understand that you may be party to potential changes not in the public domain but but I struggle to see how it could work. how would the right to use be claimed? If it is as bureaucratic as the current process and unfunded as now then progress will be near zero.

If the proposal is the strip back the process and allow cycle use to count as the single basis of claim we’ll still have an issue with “barriers” etc, also would a new PROW designation be required?

Ninfan, a separate left field question, on access land or Urban Common can clout archery be done without explicit landowner permission? Obviously not shooting at people or animals.

Genuine question btw

Ooh, that’s definitely left-field big-n-daft

Urban commons, I would say it’s an absolute yes

My reasoning for that would be that in SOS vs Billson, 1998, the law of what was permitted on s193 commons (e.g. Urban commons) was gone into in detail, and the judgement was that the law conferred the widest possible definition on the phrase ‘air and exercise’ and discussed horse riding as falling within that remit as it was a common form of taking air and exercise and was not specifically prohibited by S193(1)(a-d)

Given that clout archery has a significant history (IIRC it’s discussed as being the precursor to golf, no?) and would therefore have been an established form of air and exercise at the time, then it undoubtedly falls within the remit of permitted activities, unless additional byelaws/restrictions have been created.

Regards access land…

CROW act 2000 schedule 2 lists restrictions on activities which cannot be exercised under the rights of access for open air recreation, the only ones that might apply are restrictions on hunting apparatus (which might apply to the bow, but in the context of what you are doing would not) restrictions on organised games (so you couldn’t hole a big competition, bit an ad hoc group of friends should be ok) or the restriction activities which might intimidate others (common sense here)

So, crack on, you are 100% in the clear!

Wrexham starts with R.

ninfan & mragreeable – I’ve discussed the broader access thing with you both before and I kind of agree with you both here.

Yes the population density argument is absolutely a red herring, Scotland’s central belt is comparable to much of England & Wales in that regard.

However Scotland got its access reform because there was a political will for it to happen – it fit with the devolved government’s progressive approach.

The UK government has recently made it clear that it’s not interested in adopting the same model, so an incremental approach may be more fruitful.

The problem then (as pointed out above) is that you lose the beautiful simplicity of the Scottish system and the suitability of different FPs for biking is horrifically subjective.

Per square mile the population density in Scotland is far lower than in the rest of the UK, for a start.

If you’re going to compare England and Scotland you need to pretty much ignore the highlands and look at how access works in the central belt where the bulk of the population lives.

Given that clout archery has a significant history (IIRC it’s discussed as being the precursor to golf, no?) and would therefore have been an established form of air and exercise at the time, then it undoubtedly falls within the remit of permitted activities, unless additional byelaws/restrictions have been created.

Clout as a form of archery competition has its own history, there was also roaming archery where archers travelling to muster would shoot as they walked with marks they picked as they went. Interestingly there used to be a law that archers killing people during archery practice were not prosecuted with recorded cases of people walking behind the village butts being killed and the archer “let off”

As for golf, not aware of a link to archery, it’s blamed for the relative poorer quality of Scottish archers during the border wars with the archers of the north of England dominating most encounters such as Flodden, Dupplin Moor, Halidon Hill etc the used to be laws banning golf and forcing archery practice north of the border IIRC. Football being the distraction of the English

Having said that the best modern style Bowyers in the country are at Mellerstain

CROW act 2000 schedule 2 lists restrictions on activities which cannot be exercised under the rights of access for open air recreation, the only ones that might apply are restrictions on hunting apparatus (which might apply to the bow, but in the context of what you are doing would not)

Hunting with a bow is banned outright in the UK, so there couldn’t be a restriction based on that as it is now a sport only as long as you aren’t carrying broadheads with a deer tied to pole walking off the hill. Clout or roaming isn’t hunting in any form

Wrexham starts with R.

Only if you say it out loud…